Mitt Romney goes from "Mr Inevitable" to loser - why? Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2012 at 7:12 pm
The Inevitable Nominee started the week as the winner of the first two primaries (he thought) and held a commanding lead in the polls in South Carolina. A recount shows he actually lost in Iowa to Rick Santorum (google it) and loses badly in SC to Newt Gingrich.
How did it go so horribly wrong?
Is it because he can't connect with voters - in fact, 7 of 10 republicans consistently choose anyone but Mitt?
Is it because true conservatives see him as the Massachusetts Moderate?
Is it because he thinks his $377,000 in speaking fees last year "isn't much money"?
Is it because he hasn't released his tax returns and good people want to know if he pays an effective tax rate of 15%, or far less? Or is it the talk of Cayman island accounts and some years of NO taxes paid?
Or is it the monumental list of flip flops on almost everything?
A partial list, references and links available on any item. Google it, or ask.
flips on abortion after reading polls as listed above - 'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.'
* flips on abortion, gay marriage, capital gains taxes, stem cells, the minimum wage, climate change, the stimulus act, on Bin Ladin, on individual mandates, on his own ObamaRomneyCare, on immigration, on Reagan, on Social Security, on TARP, on cap n trade, on the auto bailout, on gun control, on Muslims and so, so much more.
Why, Mitt can't even decide on his idealogy: 'Relative to the leading candidates, some people see me as being more conservative.' AND 'I'm not the most conservative candidate.'
What takes a 7 year presidential candidate from Mr Inevitable to loser? So many reasons. What sticks in your craw about Romney?
Posted by Agree with Walter, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2012 at 9:10 am
JFK and Clinton proved that infidelity is irrelevant to the left, Reagan proved that divorce ( and probable infidelity) was irrelevant to the right.
Cain was taken out on stupid accusations, and the evangelicals fell for it.
The rest of us say.."Its the economy, stupid" to quote Carville talking to Clinton. We don't care about divorces/infidelity. At least Newt is an open book, warts and all, nothing new to see here, folks..and he has the cojones to buck the socialists in both parties and bring us back to a free economy.
Besides..of the two, a crackhead or an unfaithful married powerful man, ( unprecedented, isn't it, a powerful man who can't keep his zipper shut?).. whose judgement do I prefer?
Posted by tp, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2012 at 9:29 am
Those "family values" social conservative people are all hypocrites. They are talking about interfering with other people's families, but while they continue to do anything they want. Do as I say, not as I do.
Posted by So, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2012 at 11:45 am
What they are also ignoring is all the ethics violations, Gingrich was the first speaker to get fined for ethics violations. The vote that fined him only had 28 people vote against it. I think it's a case of short memories. I think the leader keeps shifting because this election cycle did not attract any candidates of merit. People aren't voting for someone, they are voting against the pack.
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Obama would debate Newt in a heartbeat.
He'd PAY money to debate Mitt for 7 three hour debates. Romney would never allow it.
With all the dog whistle code about Obama being the teleprompter guy, you forget he shines in front of a camera.
Remember that meeting he had with the GOP house and they all asked Obama questions? No teleprompters. One of them, Henserling asked why he had the first trillion dollar budget. Obama answered, and in the middle of the answer, Fox news cut away when they saw how it was going:
"OBAMA: All right. Jim (sic), with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running -- running a campaign.
Now, look, let's talk about the budget, once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line.
The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion. So -- so when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the annual -- or a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade.
Had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals, and then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession.
That's $8 trillion. Now, we increased it by $1 trillion because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus.
I am happy to have any independent factchecker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said."
Do not underestimate Obama. Command of facts and history. A debate with Newt would be great. But Obama will wipe the floor with Romney. In fact Romney would probably only agree to 2 or 3, highly structured, not the 7 three hour debates that Newt would do.
Romney has to go. The list of flip flops would take an hour away from any debate.
Posted by Jeff, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2012 at 9:37 pm
I like Newt generally, but I think his repeated call for the "Lincoln Douglas" debates is kind of funny. Practically and realistically, who would watch that? Seriously, what network would give up 3 hours of regular programming to hear a couple of dudes verbally duke it out. Still, I think both Obama and Newt are quite smart and have different viewpoints, so it would be valuable and interesting. I think Obama would do fine off the teleprompter, but in the three-hour span, I bet he would reveal just how far to the left he really is, which might scare a lot of people off.
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:53 am
Mitt Romney says if you attack his record in the private sector, you're attacking free enterprise and everything that makes America the best country in the world.
Except it's okay for Mitt to attack Newt Gingrich's record in the private sector, using free enterprise to make a living as a historian for Freddie Mac.
Another Mitt flip flop.
Free enterprise is good, free enterprise is very bad. The Mitt hits, they just a' keep comin'!!!!!!!!!!!
"Mitt Romney will launch a fresh offensive against rival Newt Gingrich, highlighting his consulting work for Freddie Mac and calling on him to publicly release his records relating to the mortgage giant.
Romney will air a television advertisement in the state designed to expose Gingrich as a hypocrite. The ad will contrast the former House speaker’s claims not to be a lobbyist with the $1.6 million to $1.8 million in consulting fees he reportedly was paid for his work with Freddie Mac..." Web Link
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:59 am
Obama will never be allowed, by his handlers, to have a Lincoln-Douglas debate with Newt. If, for some reason, I am wrong, it would be a major ratings win for the TV networks!
As soon as Obama starts to bring up Newt's hypocrisy regarding family values, Newt can counter with "what father would allow his kids to go to a vile racist church, in this day and age?"
Obama simply cannot stand up to Newt. That is why the L-D debate will not happen, even though there is a major demand for it. This is a 'win' for Newt, because he can keep bringing up the fact that Obama is afraid to debate, man-to-man.
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 11:30 am
"Which vile racist church are you referring to Carl"
Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Ever hear of him, svatoid?
Newt is just too much for Obama. The only debate format Obama's handlers would agree to is a highly structured affair, with carefully chosen subjects. In this regard, he is not much differenct from many other mediocre candidates, from both left and right.
It is rare to have a talent like Newt in a national election. Chrsite is another one, but he is not running.
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Back to Mitt boys. We had ANOTHER MITT FLIP FLOP today.
For those keeping score at home, that's two just today, and it's still early.
Mitt's in deep doo-doo (praise be) in FL and fighting for hid political life; if he loses Florida, he's burnt toast. A good conservative can only hope!
Can Mitt Romney get a third flip flop today and complete the hat trick?
Today's 2nd Mitt Flip:
- back in October, on the foreclosure crisis: "Don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom..." Web Link
- and today, the flip flop: "The idea that somehow this is going to cure itself all by itself is probably not real. There’s going to have to be a much more concerted effort to work with the lending institutions and help them take action which is in their best interest..." Web Link
Of course, the one consistent part of Mitt's flip is to not help Americans, only the multinational banks holding the paper.
Posted by Jan Marks, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Jan 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Bad news from Fox with this poll. Unfavorables being the key number, as they are the strongest. With all the beating on the president by every GOP candidate, he's only at 46. Mitt Romney is at 38. Gingrich is at an astounding 56.
Fox News, 1/12-14
Newt Gingrich: Fav 27, Unfav 56
Mitt Romney: Fav 45, Unfav 38
Barack Obama: Fav 51, Unfav 46
Carl: still think he's a talent? Looking at the numbers, he looks more like a gift.
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm
I remember when Reagan was running in the late 1970s. He was considered an extremist by the various opponents. He faced off against Carter. Carter's camp held Reagan's divorce against him. The rest is history.
Newt will crush Obama, like Reagan crushed Carter.
If Newt and Christie form a team, it will be a wipeout of the Democrats. Even California could go their way.
Posted by Carl, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Once again, I remember when Reagan was being savaged by the press. "Extremist", "Bonzo", "Divorced", etc. George Bush (W's father) was all about knocking him down. What happened? Reagan won the nomination, and Bush scampered all over the place, changing his previous positions, to become his VP.
Watch and learn: Newt will be the nominee and Christie will see all sorts of reasons to become his VP.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2012 at 11:26 am
The hatred/ill will in so many of these posts sickens me. I'm a moderate.
It is a fact Obama has been unsuccessful as president and it is a fact there aren't a lot of great options.
I think voting for someone who means what s/he says, like Ron Paul, is a great idea.
Divisiveness and class warfare and vicious character assassination are not the way to go in this discussion if you want meaningful much needed improvement in our federal government...look at track records, look at ideas...I think religion is a private matter, I think personal life has to be either all on the table for everyone or off the table entirely...to love Clinton and hate Gingrich seems hypocritical to me, for example.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2012 at 12:38 pm
"The hatred/ill will in so many of these posts sickens me."
Then maybe you should have a talk with Newt, Mitt, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Paul, Bachmann and the rest of the Republican syncophants and their enablers in the mormon nad born-again christian "churches" who have made it a way of life to attack women, gays, jews, democrats, latinos and other non-white aryans.
The disgusting behavior of the likes of a serial adulterer like Newt and mormon Mitt (do we really want 80+ year old conservative, white men who believe that they are the prophets of god running the country?) is revolting.
Posted by Jan Marks, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Jan 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Every time Newt takes the lead, he implodes. What a trainwreck.
We're stuck with Mitt unless this can be extended to the convention, where wiser heads prevail and give us a real candidate. Newt has to keep it going otherwise we're stuck with Mitt.
Mitt - the candidate who's campaign the other day called a missing $3million Swiss bank account "trivial."
Tone deaf morons.
LA Times. Web Link "Among the assets omitted is a Swiss bank account in Ann Romney's blind trust that campaign officials said held $3 million of the couple's money until it was closed in 2010." (have to close it if you're running for office Mitt?)
"The Romney campaign described the discrepancies as “trivial”....."
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 9:12 am
It does not really much matter, one alienates one large segment of independent voters, and the other one alienates a different segment of independent voters.
Romney has way too much money to think that he is going to sneak his haughty aristocratic style by in the election climate.
Gingrich is a total liar and just a nasty person, which a lot or Republicans seem to really admire, but not enough regular voters.
Obama's State of the Union speech was pretty flat and full of gimmicks so his rhetoric is wearing thin too, but he is so understated that it hardly shows up compared to the tear down the country Republicans.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 9:16 am
I am beginning to agree that neither Romney or Gingrich will get the nomination - they are both disliked by too many people. Paul may just be too old - although McCain managed against those odds. This may end up being Santorini just because he is least disliked!
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2012 at 9:45 am
Romney carpetbombs Gingrich in Florida. Ahhhh, it's so easy when you can spend money like it's water:
"Through Friday, the Romney campaign and the super PAC Restore Our Future had spent a combined $15,340,000, the source said. Gingrich’s campaign and the super PAC Winning Our Future spent a comparatively paltry $3,390,000." Web Link
Can't earn it, Mitt? Then BUY IT! It's your style!
If no viable candidate steps in, Mitt's it. Ugh.
In 2016, when all the real candidates come around seeking my vote, I am going to ask them where they where in 2012. Hear that Jeb? Mitch Daniels? Chris Christie? The rest of you serious candidates too scared of Obama to run this time? You guys have left us with Mitt the Flip (aka: born liar) Romney.
Step in now, serious candidates. Redeem yourselves.
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2012 at 8:19 am
New York Times:
"Close to 60 corporations and wealthy individuals gave checks of $100,000 or more to a “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, according to documents released on Tuesday, underwriting a $17 million blitz of advertising that has swamped his Republican rivals in the early primary states."
In the last week, Mitt and his PAC ran 13,000 ads, only 0.1% were positive ("Mitt's a nice guy") and 99.9% were negative attack ads destroying the Grand Old Party.
Newt has to stay alive through Super Tuesday to grab some delegates in the South.
Take it to the convention where saner heads prevail and dump Romney.
Posted by wasp, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:20 am
The liberal media is skewering Romney today for his comments "I’m not concerned about the very poor." Come on, he is just being honest. This has been the Republican strategy for decades. Remember Reagan's trickle down economics? Do you really want a hypocrite Republican candidate who says he cares about the poor, but then does nothing for them? Better to just be honest about doing nothing, then not disappointing anyone later.
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Mitt wins in Nevada, but...................
Over 25% of the caucus goers are Mormon, and................
Mitt still FAILS TO GET 50% of the vote! Face it Mitt, most of us just aren't that into you.
There's still hope, maybe Newt and Santorum can drag it out to Super Tuesday, and get enough delegates to force it to the convention where we could wind up with a miracle candidate - a real conservative with a chance of winning.
A longshot, but with Ron Paul getting his 10-15% of the delegates in the proportional states, who knows?
Posted by Pepp, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 6, 2012 at 8:42 am
America is catching on about Mitt the Flip (aka: natural born liar) Romney. From today's poll, Mitt loses 52-46, almost as bad as the 8 point drubbing McCain took in 2008. Worse:
"...questions focused on Romney’s wealth, his low tax burden and, relatedly, his ability to connect with average Americans. Notably, 52 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say the more they hear about Romney the less they like him – double the number who like him more." Web Link
"the more they hear about Romney the less they like him"
Time for a real candidate to step up - hear that Jeb? Mitch Daniels? Chris Christie?
Don't come begging for our votes in 2016 after showing you're too scared to run against Obama in 2012.
"Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.
Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31)."
Posted by wasp, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2012 at 11:57 am
As soon as a legitimate Republican WASP candidate steps up, Santorum and Romney are finished. The powerful hard core social conservative block is not going to support a non-WASP candidate. Right now, Gingrich has too much baggage for them to take seriously.
Posted by Foster Freeze, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:40 am
"It is a fact Obama has been unsuccessful as president"
"look at track records"
Clearly the poster doesn't take his own advice.
1. Obama inherited an economy hemorrhaging jobs at 700,000 jobs lost per month.
Obama added 3 million jobs in the last two years.
2. Obama was handed a trillion dollar deficit from Bush (who was handed a surplus). Along with the trillion dollar deficit and massive job losses, Obama was given the worst economy since the great depression.
Obama proposed a budget today that cuts $4 trillion off the deficit.
3. Bin Ladin
4. Obama has made these gains (and we need many more gains, of course) despite an opposition that votes against him at every turn. The worst job performance in the last two years came at a time, and was caused by, the GOP threatening to default on America's obligations, the so called debt crisis. The opposition wants Obama to fail so badly, they don't care what happens to normal Americans.
House republicans are unpatriotic to everyday Americans in their zeal to defeat Obama.
But this thread is about Mitt.... okay, here's the reality... I agree with the above statement: he's a liar.
"* flips on abortion, gay marriage, capital gains taxes, stem cells, the minimum wage, climate change, the stimulus act, on Bin Ladin, on individual mandates, on his own ObamaRomneyCare, on immigration, on Reagan, on Social Security, on TARP, on cap n trade, on the auto bailout, on gun control, on Muslims and so, so much more."
Posted by Foster Freeze, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2012 at 11:24 am
Perspective - who's your first choice, since you can't stomach Romney?
True -- he does understand numbers. 13% income tax on $42 million, even with that he hides money in Swiss bank accounts and has dozens of Cayman Island hidey holes to avoid paying fair taxes like the rest of us. Can't wait to see the tax returns before the one he released, before he cleaned up all those dirty little secrets. Even the sanitized ones have the Swiss and Cayman accounts.
Romney understands industry too -- from 2008:
"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."
How's that guarantee coming, Mitt? Obama saves 3 million manufacturing jobs in America -- while Mitt wants to send jobs overseas (like his money.)
Of course, Mitt flip flopped on his auto position this week in an editorial in Detroit.
No surprise with that Mitt flip flop. He had to.
Santorum is clobbering him in the polls in Michigan, Mitt's home state where his daddy actually made an honest living at AMC.
Mitt's not going to make it. Been running for president for 10 years, spent hundreds of millions, and still can't get half the party to even like him. He has to go negative again in Michigan, his home state. Looks like the only places he can win are states that have a big group of Mo voters registered. except NH -- where he's lived since running (in a $10 million "cabin" on Lake Winnipesaukee) and Florida, where he imported thousands of Mo's to work the ground game and bombarded by air with negative ads against Speaker Gingrich, outspending 20-1.)
So we all understand why you don't like Mitt, who's your first choice?
Posted by Jan Marks, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Feb 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Mitt must be stopped - he all but admits to his next flip flop today.
"Another Romney adviser said the governor would spend just enough time on social issues to dispatch Santorum and then move on. “He’s going to pivot back,” the adviser said. “He’s not going to go far..."
Of course not. Now he's telling everyone he was fibbing when he said he supports gays and abortion and healthcare mandates when he was a governor. For example:
"That same article quoted his top strategist at the time, Mike Murphy, as saying Mr. Romney had been “a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”"
"“He was always uncomfortable on the issue, but he was penned in by having run as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and by the political realities of Massachusetts in 2002,” said Rob Gray, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney’s campaign for governor. “It was made clear to him by advisers early on in his gubernatorial race that he had to be pro-choice, and he could not show any hesitation.” " Web Link
Faking. As in telling lies.
Or is he faking now and he was truthful then? I doubt even Mitt can keep track any more, that's why they won't let him go on the Sunday talkshows.
Senator Santorum is our only hope.
I repeat: Jeb, Daniels and Christie will never get my vote for being too chicken to run against Obama.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 10:12 am
Again, I prefer a malleable flip flopper who can be led to the right place to a dedicated statist/socialist/communist/anti-Constitutionalist/whatever you want to call the rigid ideology of Obama and the Democrat Party. I am done with "fundamental transformation". I don't want to be transformed into Greece or France.
First choice out of the ones left standing: Santorum. He understands economics, supports Ryan's plan, understands we DON'T make ourselves the weakest military in the world ( China, Russia and the Middle East are really hoping we are dumb enough to destroy 80% of our nuclears like Obama is talking about...), understands we have a Constitution and laws and wants to return us to respect for both.
However, given my bet is Romney "gets it", I will vote for him over Obama, and anyone over any sitting RINO or Democrat for Senate or House.
This is, in my opinion, the last chance we have to fix our error. If Obama is re-elected, we are going to watch our kids be slaves to our debt, and our promises collapse, like Greece ( and France, frankly)
Posted by Foster Freeze, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2012 at 10:34 am
Looks like Mitt (mr kill the American auto industry) Romney is the last choice of you, Walter, Pepp, Jan and other posters.
We all love the Santorum.
More Mitt-speakfrom yesterday: “This week, President Obama will release a budget that won’t take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis,” Romney said. “The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors”.
Mitt flips again. In the same statement he's at once saying we're spending too much on Medicare and Social Security and blasting Obama for cutting Medicare and Soicial Security.
Can't have it both ways Mitt. Lord knows, you keep trying.
He's half right with it's time to cut medicare and social security.
Posted by Jan Marks, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Feb 16, 2012 at 11:52 am
Mitt must be stopped.
He started this week trying to manage his third opinion on the auto bailouts - against it, for it, now, golly gee, it wasn't done the way he would have done it. Guess he read the poll that said Michigan supports the bailout by big numbers. (you are shocked, I know...)
"For all of 2011, G.M. earned $7.6 billion, nearly all of it from North America. That was 62 percent higher than the $4.7 billion it earned a year ago and nominally more than G.M.’s previous record of $6.7 billion in 1997"
Waffle some more, Mitt.
Senator Santorum needs our help.
(btw, Foster - you spelled you last name incorrectly)
Posted by Jan Marks, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Feb 16, 2012 at 1:51 pm
It is a pity. So many good candidates and they chose not to support their country by running to replace Obama. Perhaps they knew what a crazy year it would be. Perhaps they knew the party is pretty screwed up in a bunch of ways.
Turnout is way down. No voter enthusiasm. Romney's losing states he won in 2008 (thank the Lord!)
They've even screwed up the voting, rather, the counting of votes.
First, Mitt wins Iowa and they say no recount. Then they recount and call it a tie. A day later they say Senator Santorum won by 8 votes. The state chair quits.
Same mess up in Maine. Looks like they still haven't finished counting the votes. Another county votes on Saturday. With Romney up by a hundred votes, it looks like all the Ron Paulies will come out on Saturday with a vengeance. The state chair is censured.
Nevada was a mess to, but their party has been in disarray since Sue Lowden lost.
Waht on earth happened to the Grand Old Party? All that money wasted, no organization, all sorts of great candidates that were afraid to run.
It is a pity.
If Romney wins, he'll get us killed. Better to boycott him and get a real candidate in 2016.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2012 at 7:45 am
I disagree, Jan. Even Romney, with Repubs taking over Congress, can begin to undo the damage. Repeal Obamacare, take down the EPA attackdogs, stop bowing to our enemies, sign Ryan's plan into action ( or the PennyMack plan) once the Congress passes one of them as a budget ( which will be the first budget in 4 years!!). Frankly, ANY pulling back will be better than Obama.Even Bush with the complicity of RINOs was too far to the left for me in spending and growing govt, but at least he and the RINOs had a clue about our Constitution and how to grow an economy, and even weakly protested the Community Reinvestment act on steroids ( but didn't have the spine to really do anything, though in full power for 4 years and could have averted the mortgage disaster). But, a small wall is better than no wall.
If we let Obama win again, we lock in far too much damage. It still isn't too late to turn the Titanic around so that it is just damaged, not destroyed. But waiting 4 years will sink the Titanic. Just change our name to the US of Greece.
Posted by Jan Marks, a member of the Juana Briones School community, on Feb 17, 2012 at 10:45 am
C, Handyman: start an illegal voter thread (or answer the man with a link or other substantiation) this thread is about Myth Romney
Perspective: "Even Bush with the complicity of RINOs was too far to the left for me"
Agree. Bush was a complete disaster for our economy and jobs. Spending and deficit too. Tax cuts in time of war? sheesh. Never been done before. All new lows for our great country.
Disagree with you on the constitution issues - he was atrocious on the Constitution also. My dad and grandpap would spin in their graves if they knew about America torturing prisoners. They didn't fight the good fight to sink to that.
Looks like Senator Santorum is still holding leads in Michigan and some of the Super Tuesday states.
• Bain & Co. Consulting (1993) Web Link "Republican Senate nominee Mitt Romney's rescue of a business consulting firm was achieved in part by convincing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to forgive roughly $ 10 million of the company's debts, according to sources close to the deal and federal records obtained by The Boston Globe."
Bailouts blown by Myth Romney:
• American auto industry (2009)
Four bailouts that make Myth or his church money? okay dokie.
A bailout that saves an industry in one of Myth's 4 or 5 home states? uh-oh.